Why are so many people here seemingly STOKED for escalation?

[Ken Burch]

It's not like it could lead to anything any non-reactionary could celebrate.

When did this become Bloodlust Underground?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Who's stoked?

I've certainly read a lot of people here who accept the escalation in Afghanistan as a grim necessity. (Whether it is, in fact, a necessity is certainly a point of contention.) But I haven't read anyone who's excited about it, looking forward to pouring tens of thousands of more soldiers in to the meatgrinder.

[Peacetrain]

2. Sweet God.. Do you stop and read before what you write before you post?

NO one is stoked on escalation. But no matter what democrat was in office we would have come to this fork in the road.

They all were going to increase Afghanistan troops.

[freddie mertz]

4. You seem pretty untroubled by it.

Based on your posts, I'd say you qualify, at the very least, as an enthusiastic supporter of, and dedicated apologist for, the escalation policy.

Which is odd, given your posting handle.

[Peacetrain]

6. Go ahead and knock yourself out .. pull up every post I have ever laid down in DU

and show one, just one, where I am "enthusiastic" about what is about to go down. I knew it was coming. It would have come with any of the... go ahead

[freddie mertz]

14. Do answer then, is it a good policy or s it not?

REGARDLESS of who is proposing it?

Can you forget about Obama for ONE MINUTE and speak to the merits of the war expansion in its own terms?

I think after all this endless barrage, we have a right to ask that of you guys.

YES or NO?

[Peacetrain]

17. No baby cakes.. pull up those posts you accused me of.. I am waiting.. hell we are all waiting

[freddie mertz]

21. Then wait forever, ex-Peace guy.

I read your most RECENT posts as supportive of the president's escalation in Afghanistan.

Is that wrong?

Then just say so and forget the silly posturing.

[Ken Burch]

32. self-delete

never mind.

[Peacetrain]

38. You too

[Peacetrain]

37. Back it up or back down.. show them

[freddie mertz]

19. No. I am responding to your posts right now, today.

I am not a connoisseur of your work, or a historian of your posts.

Are you opposed or supportive of the escalation on its own terms?

It is easy to answer.

Stop with the smokescreen barrage, OK?

[Peacetrain]

20. You are the one that made the accusation.. now back it up or back down

[freddie mertz]

22. What accusation is that again?

[Peacetrain]

23. Just as I thought...

[freddie mertz]

24. You are engaging in a predetermined dialogue with yourself.

I have ben speaking very directly to you each time.

Why do you refuse to explain your point of view?

Cause it seems clear that you support what the president is about to do.

I'm not the only one who is getting that impression.

[Peacetrain]

26. Back it up, or back down.. you are the one that opened this volley..

[freddie mertz]

27. Back what up? You have a thread up right now that is supportive.

[Peacetrain]

28. Anyone can read backwards and see what you are trying to do.. back it up or back down

freddie mertz (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-30-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You seem pretty untroubled by it.

Based on your posts, I'd say you qualify, at the very least, as an enthusiastic supporter of, and dedicated apologist for, the escalation policy.

Which is odd, given your posting handle.

[freddie mertz]

30. My opinion is based on your two OPs today. nt.

[Peacetrain]

33. Show it..

[freddie mertz]

41. OK, my narcissistic friend.

Here are the threads from this very day in which I felt you provided an "Apologetic" (in the theological sense) rationalization for the current war policy.

1. Peacetrain: "There was no avoiding this fork in the road.. We were left with 2 hot wars to try and settle.

No matter who would have gotten into office, including Kuch, Clinton, Biden.. this moment in time would have come."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x26142

My Translation: Escalation was inevitable. The President had no choice. Blame no one. Resistance is futile. Dissidents Should Shut Up.

Peacetrain: "Obama, Clinton.. all the major players in the Dem primaries were calling for more troops in Afgan.

Now that is just the plain and simple truth. I knew what I voted for, and while nervous as hell at how this is going to turn out, and wishing there was another way... I knew what I voted for, I knew who I voted for..

I am not surprised.

I am not chagrined.

I am not shocked to my socks."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=25800&mesg_id=25800

My translation: No mater who was elected, they would have escalated the war. People protesting the decision who voted for Obama (should have) known this. They are stupid or lying if they say they did not, which makes their objection to the policy invalid. By extension, PT suggests that most or all objection to the policy is either based on wrong assumptions or otherwise unacceptable. Fate is in control, we have no power to stop it, war must inevitably come. And it really doesn't bother me much (I am not chagrined)

That last was a rather long interpretation I admit.

[Peacetrain]

44. Oh "your" translations of my posts...how dishonest can you get

"your" interpretations of my words.

No matter who would have gotten the office..this day would come. The war was put on our doorstep. There is not magical thinking that will make that not so.

I knew WHO ever I voted for, we would reach this crossroads..

I am not shocked, nor chagrined nor surprised.

I am sad...

[freddie mertz]

46. I quoted you straight, then gave my interpretation.

The distinctions were clear enough.

If I have misread you it was not intentional.

You haven't convinced me that I was especially off base.

[Peacetrain]

48. I do not care what you think.. just do not twist my words.

[freddie mertz]

53. I did not twist them, I quoted them verbatim.

Then posted in clearly different format my reading of their meaning in the context of the ongoing discourse.

In the end, what strikes me most is your persistent refusal to answer the question I have posed repeatedly" that is, do you think escalation is a good policy right now?

Nothing could be clearer than that question, there is no trick to it.

All this posturing strikes me as an effort to deny the basic issue at hand,.

[Peacetrain]

59. Oh your "interpretations" yeah right.. I saw that... peddle to someone else

[JuniperLea]

72. Wow... that one is relentless...

And not playing fair either.

Tell you what! You write something, then I'll "interpret" it, then clobber you with my take on it! Smashing good fun!

NOT!

:hug:

[freddie mertz]

90. Still no answer to the straightforward question.

I'm guessing this is all part of the game for you.

Bye.

[Peacetrain]

60. You do NOT get your own special version of the facts..

1. OK, my narcissistic friend.

Here are the threads from this very day in which I felt you provided an "Apologetic" (in the theological sense) rationalization for the current war policy.

1. Peacetrain: "There was no avoiding this fork in the road.. We were left with 2 hot wars to try and settle.

No matter who would have gotten into office, including Kuch, Clinton, Biden.. this moment in time would have come."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

My Translation: Escalation was inevitable. The President had no choice. Blame no one. Resistance is futile. Dissidents Should Shut Up.

Peacetrain: "Obama, Clinton.. all the major players in the Dem primaries were calling for more troops in Afgan.

Now that is just the plain and simple truth. I knew what I voted for, and while nervous as hell at how this is going to turn out, and wishing there was another way... I knew what I voted for, I knew who I voted for..

I am not surprised.

I am not chagrined.

I am not shocked to my socks."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

My translation: No mater who was elected, they would have escalated the war. People protesting the decision who voted for Obama (should have) known this. They are stupid or lying if they say they did not, which makes their objection to the policy invalid. By extension, PT suggests that most or all objection to the policy is either based on wrong assumptions or otherwise unacceptable. Fate is in control, we have no power to stop it, war must inevitably come. And it really doesn't bother me much (I am not chagrined)

That last was a rather long interpretation I admit.
"Everybody's colored or else you wouldn't be able to see them." Don van Vliet (Captain Beefheart).

[freddie mertz]

101. Still no answer on the basic question.

I wonder why?

[dionysus]

115. you construct poorly made strawmen with the best of them

you are a true american hero
:patriot:

[JuniperLea]

68. So lame...

Where are the posts you claim this poster made?

Back it up or you owe her an apology... seriously, dude... you are rude and wrong.

[freddie mertz]

91. I did.

[dionysus]

116. no, you made shit up out of whole cloth. apparently you don't understand the difference.

:shrug:

[knightinwhitesatin]

69. Please do explain

why it is neccessary for people like me to go kill people that had nothing to do with 9/11........

Please tell me why Obama finds it neccessary to send 30,000 more young Americans to kill Pashtun tribal members who had nothing to do with 9/11.

Please tell me why I will spend another year in a shit hole fighting people who did nothing to us.......

Oh please wise armchair general tell me why it must happen

[HughMoran]

36. ad hominem

not unexpected though

[freddie mertz]

42. Actually, its a plausible reading of what is being expressed.

Not ad hominem in the slightest.

[CTLawGuy]

61. you remind me of fundies who

call pro choice people "pro-abortion". Confusing one's belief that something is necessary with enthusiastic support.

[HughMoran]

34. no

you're wasting your time

[brentspeak]

57. You do realize how completely ludicrous your DU handle is in this context?

[RoccoR5955]

3. Stoked to PROTEST ANY WAR!

Tomorrow, 12/1, Highland Falls, NY, at the park on Main St. 5:30 p.m. March to West Point, and let Obama know that we will not tolerate escalation.

http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/ has all the info.

Be there and be counted.

[Ken Burch]

5. That kind of stoked I'm down with

But there are a lot of folks that actually sound like they're GLOATING about the damn war, like they WANTED another freaking Vietnam or not. Some want 80,000 troops instead of 34,000!

I think we've got some people mainlining Peter Beinart 'round these parts.

(edit:typo)

[sandnsea]

8. Who? I haven't seen any posts like that n/t

[Ken Burch]

11. Exhibit A:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x21474

Also check pretty much anything the author of the OP in that thread has posted on the subject.

[sandnsea]

13. Well I can't

I am ignoring the author of that thread.

[Ken Burch]

18. A wise choice on your part. There are a lot of others out there

Some of them acting like they've pulled a great fraternity prank on the antiwar wing of the party.

[sandnsea]

25. I just read it

I have my suspicions on that poster, that's why they're on ignore. By the way, what did OperationMindCrime do to finally get the boot.

[Ken Burch]

31. I'm not sure. Unfortunately, they don't actually mark the "Too Far" post

It might be good if they did, so that people could see what finally led to the 'stoning.

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. Not sure which one of his posts was the proverbial straw

But since everything he posted was right wing bullshit, and 98% came from a position of pathological hatred for anything remotely resembling Democratic values, I guess you could take your pick? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

52. Yeah but he's been here so long

It would be interesting to know. I think about half of what he posted was right wing bullshit, but there are a lot of men who identify with the Democratic Party who are also authoritarian and a bit chauvinistic so maybe I gave him some slack on the other half of his posts.

[JVS]

50. Oh dear! Ignored is at it again!

[sandnsea]

7. Why are you stoked to be hateful?

You are acting more hateful than any of the so-called "militarists" ever could.

Why?

[Ken Burch]

16. I'm hateful of the idea of reckless militarism

It terrifies me that it's getting support on what is supposedly a progressive website.

I'm also hateful of the idea that "it's ok when OUR guy does it". That notion has never taken this party to good places.

I'm not hateful of prowar people as people. I'm hateful of the mindset. It's a mindset of death.

And I love my grandchildren and wish for a safe future for all those of their age. The oldest would be of draft age within a couple of years. So will their friends.

[Orsino]

100. ...and that it seems to be a sexually-transmitted disease...

...that you can catch from the Oval Office chair. Escalating in Afghanistan is being sold to us as the sensible approach to war, but I can't see it as anyting more than a continuation of the reckless militarism yo mentioned.

I am afraid that I'm going to see our president lie to us about having a cunning new plan that cannot fail, when fighting in Afghanistan is by definition failure.

But okay, Mr. President--sell me. What will all the additional blood and money buy us, really?

[polichick]

9. Because this is their superhero's war now. Hip-hip-hooray! nt

[Baltoman991]

12. I figured it

wouldn't be long before you started spouting the right wing cries about the Obama supporters.

See heres the thing though, we, the supporters, aren't the ones wanting him to be the super hero. You and the others who despise all things Obama are the ones. Why? Because you want everything fixed yesterday thats wrong with our country. We, the supporters know he's only HUMAN and will need time to fix it all.

As far as the OP, show me just one post of someone being excited about the increase? Here, I'll help, you won't find any. What you'll find is posts from those of us who knew it was coming.

Honestly, it's not a bad thing to post the truth on this board. Try is some time.

[polichick]

15. LOL - I've never noticed you before but thanks for the laugh. nt

[Baltoman991]

35. Yeah, I'm sure.

The truth does make those that stretch it have that nervous little laugh going on.

[Cha]

39. That shit is on every thread..ugly nasty little

cheap shots.

[dionysus]

117. just because you're bitter he got elected, doesn't mean you can go around making shit up everywhere.

i mean seriously, the shtick is old.
:shrug:

[cali]

10. I've seen very little of that. Yes, a minority of people here support

Obama on the escalation of Afghanistan, but it's a distinct minority and although I disagree with them, I certainly haven't seen any bloodlust.

Your hyperbole and melodrama don't serve to make a point.

[Cha]

40. +1

[Beetwasher]

29. Heh, Where? I Don't Support The Escalation, But I Understand The Decision

And I won't abandon Obama because of it. I pretty much knew going in he was going to do this.

I don't see many (if any) posters happy about this decision. And I don't think Obama is happy about it either.

[Whisp]

43. who? how many?

I've not seen any of these stoked threads you speak of, the bloodlust kind. I have seen some analytical posts from people with experience and knowledge to explain as to Why this may be a necessary continuation for war. I'm not so convinced but there have been a lot of good input without raging bloodlust requests. that I have seen.

you exaggerate.

[JVS]

45. Too much Ol' Glory energy drink

http://www.olglory.com/

[Ken Burch]

56. You may well be right.

n/t.

[4lbs]

49. Peacetrain is right, nearly every Presidential candidate would have escalated Afghanistan.

Only Kucinich and Ron Paul would have truly ended everything, and we all know how little support they got.

If Hillary had won, she'd be the one announcing an escalation tomorrow.

If Edwards had won, he was in favor of it too.

If McCain had won, not only would he increase the troops, there would be much, much, more than the 30,000 or so going there. In addition, he wanted to invade Iran too.

In fact every Republican candidate was in favor of a HUGE increase in Afghanistan. Much more than the 30,000 going. It would have been closer to 100,000 under a Republican President. In addition, they wouldn't have gotten NATO support, we'd be "going it alone" in Afghanistan just like in Iraq.

[Ken Burch]

55. Those who speak against this would've spoken against anyone ELSE doing this as well

And damn sure would have spoken against anyone calling for a BIGGER escalation.

[Oregone]

51. Not stoked. Defending their e-Boyfriend

They have to wildly pretend to like the policy before entering the fray. Sad

[polichick]

62. I wonder how many have a poster of him in their rooms. nt

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knightinwhitesatin]

70. +1

from a soldier who has to go and do this bull shit. Still waiting one one brave DU armchair general to tell me why it is neccessary other than because Obama said so. I like the President in every regard except this one..........it's disillusioning at best to think he can be so easily swayed by the generals selling him this pile of shit

[bigwillq]

74. Hello

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[RoccoR5955]

82. I couldn't agree with you more...

And in case you haven't read, there is going to be a demonstration outside of West Point tomorrow night, at the time he is giving his TV speech. Check out the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter here: http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

[JTFrog]

97. Mom let you stay up past your e-bedtime tonight?

And your little friends too.

How precious.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. (Image of Arlo Guthrie jumping up & down inSelectiv Service office)

Kill! Kill!

[AllentownJake]

64. You know half of Du is saying

Who is Arlo Guthrie?

[Jackpine Radical]

78. No doubt.

How many would recognize Woody?

[Ken Burch]

83. Or worse, they'd think Woody was THIS guy:

[freddie mertz]

92. Arlo and his family played in my town last week.

Great show by the way.

[otohara]

58. Trashing DU Members Isn't Going to Prevent

President Obama from doing what he thinks needs to be done in Afghanistan.

[AllentownJake]

65. For people getting their way

I've never seen people so miserable and angry in my life.

[JuniperLea]

66. Show me one...

Just one.

:eyes:

[Aramchek]

67. nobody's stoked. we're just realistic.

Only people incapable of consequential thinking believe we can just pull out.

[knightinwhitesatin]

71. LOL

realistic about what? Interfering in a tribal ethnic/religious civil war?

realistic about what sending 30,000 more Americans to die or watch their friends die?

realistic about what fighting the Taliban who did nothing to us?

Still waiting for an armchair general to tell me why it is necessary to send me to Afghanistan now that Al qaeda is gone from there.......

[Aramchek]

75. because al qaeda is not gone from there

Simple enough for you?

[knightinwhitesatin]

77. Interesting

Petraeus the other day reported to the White House that Al qaeda was down to less than a hundred fighters in Afghanistan.........Most of them were in Pakistan.

[Aramchek]

80. didn't you just say they were gone?

[knightinwhitesatin]

81. So 100,000 Americans 30,000 NATO troops

and 140,000 Afghani troops is justified force for 100 Al Qaeda fighters?

And why are you so hell bent on sending me to a war zone where thousands more innocents will die

[grasswire]

103. and aren't there a lot of contracted goons too?

in addition to the 100,000?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

88. Al Qaeda could be next door to you...

plotting away. Or Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the UAE...

[tekisui]

104. Yes they are.

There is no operational AQ in Afghanistan anymore.

[Aramchek]

107. you know this from experience?

[tekisui]

111. From the experience of reading, yes.

AQ is financially broke and operationally broken in Afghanistan. They have left for Somalia, and other Northern African countries, as well as Yemen. There aren't even that many in Pakistan.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. Gradual "pull out" can happen without escalation.

And I've yet to hear how we'll define victory, but for the video game parlance from the stoked crowd.

[Aramchek]

76. Bush had no goals in Afghanistan, Obama does. He will withdraw when they are accomplished

[tkmorris]

84. Do you happen to know what they are?

Maybe I've just started to tune out, I have been rather busy as well, but I can't recall any clear goals being identified. Vague ones to be sure, but no specifics. Help a brother out would you?

[Aramchek]

108. tune in to Obama's speech tonight

[WorseBeforeBetter]

86. Bush had goals...

furtherance of the military/industrial complex. And just what are Obama's goals?

[tekisui]

105. 'Mission Accomplished!'

I've heard that before.

[Aramchek]

109. each time you insinuate that Obama=Bush you make yourself look more foolish

[tekisui]

112. I am not insinuating that Obama is like bush.

I am pointing out the absurdity that wars can be won.

[Aramchek]

113. I'm pretty sure someone won WWII, WWI, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, etc.

[tekisui]

118. What about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Modern wars, not fought against nations and armies, can't be 'won'. They can be stopped. Occupations can end, when the occupier leaves.

[liquid diamond]

94. Damn, you beat me to it.

[Lilith Velkor]

79. It's not the escalation people are stoked for

It's the opportunity to call other DUers anti-American traitors.

There used to be a name for them a few years back, can't rightly remember what it was. :freak:

[ShortnFiery]

85. Because they are not going to be the grunts on the ground KILLING and DYING ...

for geopolitics and the corporations of the MIC. They just have to CHEER and put a magnet on their cars that they "support the troops." Rah. :eyes:

[Overseas]

87. We're flooded with Climate Change Deniers -- dirty war doesn't matter.

Apparently, business as usual is all good.

[AllentownJake]

89. Don't know why

Half of the democrats in congress have said they have no desire to look at any environmental bill this year

:shrug:

[Overseas]

120. Do we need more fodder for the war machine?

Without any massive "buy American" green jobs program, we'll have more people desperate enough to join the military,

or to be attracted to the big bucks the war profiteers offer.

[liquid diamond]

93. I'm not stoked.

Just realistic.

[Garam_Masala]

95. 911

There were no US troops in Iraq on 911
There were no US troops in Afghanistan on 911

[tekisui]

106. What does 911 have to do with Afghanistan in 2010?

[HamdenRice]

96. What a laughably foolish post. You've now officially jumped the shark, Kenny!

[hayu_lol]

98. Obviously, the jobless crisis is now officially over...

30,000 fresh combat troops in Afghanistan equals about 1,000,000 new recruits in the training programs.

(sarcasm)

[quaker bill]

99. not stoked at all

simply unsurprised.

[marshall]

102. Trying to support our President?

Just a thought--he needs our support, now as always.

[TheKentuckian]

110. There must be a new definition of stoked that has come into vogue

I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm seeing absolutely nothing that I'd even loosely define as enthusiasm except from Confederate nutjobs and hardcore neocons on TV. Even some of the nutjob neocons that have testified on the hill seem kinda sheepish and are careful to promise about nothing but they feel it would be worse to leave or to reduce the footprint and make this a special forces whack a mole mission (which I think is the appropriate military posture, if any).

I'm not onboard with this debacle at all but there is no reason to exaggerate what is being said in this dialog to make a point. The situation speaks for it's self and I don't think some reactionary witchhunt provoking finger pointing is useful here.

[dionysus]

114. have only seen one person do that, as a flamebait OP...

:shrug:

[msallied]

119. I see someone stoking a flame war.